Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Dara Singh - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 108 of 2014
Decided On : 28-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Mr. Pankaj Miglani.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Joshi.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove culpability in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving fatal accidents.

Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Law - Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC - The court discussed the evidence presented by witnesses and the postmortem report to conclude that there was no evidence to prove that the accident took place due to any rash and negligent act of the revisionist.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a fatal accident where the revisionist was convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC for a collision between a motorcycle and a tractor, resulting in the death of the motorcycle rider.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the accident took place due to any rash and negligent act of the revisionist, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned judgment and orders and acquit the revisionist of the charges.
Issues: The key issue was the lack of evidence to establish the revisionist's culpability for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of evidence to support the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the circumstances of the accident and the revisionist's alleged negligence.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the impugned judgment and orders were set aside, and the revisionist was acquitted of the charges.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant revision is preferred against the followings:-

(i) Judgement and order dated 06.12.2013, passed in Case No. 2093 of 2011, State Vs. Dara Singh, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 279 IPC – rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(ii) Under Section 304A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, with a fine of Rs.5000/-.

(iii) Under Section 427 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 23.05.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2014, Dara Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it the appeal has been dismissed and the order passed in the case was affirmed.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:-

On 21.01.2009, the deceased Ashok Kumar was riding a motorcycle UA-076887 and approaching towards Rishikesh, near Mansa Devi Fatak, a Forest Checkpost, a tractor bearing Registration No. UK 07C-9019 hit the motorcycle while overtaking it. Due to which, Ashok Kumar was seriously injured. He was taken to hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The incident was witnessed by Bharat Bisht and Shailesh Singh, who were following Ashok Kumar in their own vehicle. It happened at 8:45 in the evening. The report was lodged by PW1 Yashpal Singh, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased. Based on this report, which was lodged at 11:30, a case was lodged and investigation carried out. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279, 304A, 427 IPC was submitted. Cognizance taken.

3. On 04.06.2011, the revisionist was read over the accusations. He did not plead guilty. According to him, the motorcycle collided with stationary tractor trolley. He was not driving the tractor at the relevant time.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, PW1 Yashpal Singh, the informant, PW2 Bharat Bisht, the eyewitness, PW3 Shailesh Singh, another eyewitness, PW4 Mohan Singh Sajwan, the person, who inspected the vehicle involved in the accident, PW5 Dr. M.S. Jangpangi and PW6 Chandra Mohan Singh Negi, the Investigating Officer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. PW1 Yashpal Singh is the informant. He was told about the incident by PW2 Bharat Bisht. According to this witness, PW2 Bharat Bisht is the resident of their mohalla. He reached at the spot and lodged a report Ex. A1. He is also the witness of inquest Ex.A2.

7. PW2 Bharat Bisht has stated that on the date of incident, Ashok Kumar was riding on his motorcycle. He was following him alongwith PW3 Shailesh Singh. At about 8:45, according to this witness, the tractor hit the motorcycle. Due to which, Ashok Kumar was injured. He was taken to hospital by this witness, but he died. He immediately informed PW2 Bharat Bisht.

8. PW3 Shailesh Singh has also corroborated the statement of PW2 Bharat Bisht. Although in his cross examination, PW2 Bharat Singh has stated that when he reached at the spot, he did not see the accident and he cannot say as to who was responsible for the accident. PW3 Shailesh Singh has stated that he witnessed the accident. The driver of the tractor trolley was rash and negligent.

9. The question is, if PW2 Bharat Bisht and PW3 Shailesh Singh both were riding on the same motorcycle, how could one say that he reached at the spot after the accident had taken place and another would say that he had witnessed the accident?

10. The Court is cautious of the fact that this is a revision in which generally appreciation of evidence is not done. In revision, the correctness, legality

Click Here to Read the rest of this document